Thanks for your input everyone. You convinced me we should with the third option[1] for now.
Markus, nothing prevent us from changing this behavior in the future if there's a need for it but since this is a regression and we don't have a clear backward compatible upgrade path defined we should go with the safe alternative for now. Simon https://github.com/django/django/pull/5964 Le samedi 9 janvier 2016 16:13:15 UTC-5, Aymeric Augustin a écrit : > > Hello, > > On 9 janv. 2016, at 19:51, Shai Berger <sh...@platonix.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > So, I say, go for option 3. A field defined in a model in app1 takes > app- > > relative references in app1. > > I agree. > > We’re discussing an unintended regression. The discussion shows possible > improvements in this area but the correct course of action isn't obvious. > > In such circumstances, we should fix the regression by restoring the > historical behavior. If someone wants to tackle the improvements, it's > always > possible at a later point, after considering the general situation > carefully. > > You may want to leave a comment pointing to these hypothetical > improvements > when you write the patch. > > Best regards, > > -- > Aymeric. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/2e1d50e6-d13f-4b19-b20d-9dcbec990947%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
